Conclusion
As is so often the case in reading Hobson, it is difficult to be sure whether the good society would simply emerge inexorably, with Hobson acting as a humble intellectual midwife, or to what extent its development would depend upon the accidents of politics.
But it is reasonably certain that Hobson believed that, although the vested propertied interests could stave off reform, especially through imperialism for a while, in the long run progress of the kind he had outlined was inevitable. He was frank and unapologetic about the teleological bent of his work (Hobson 1902, 66, 282-3) and was convinced that he was marching in step with the evolving common sense of the common man (Hobson 1914, 319-22).As suggested at the beginning of this paper, a good understanding of the basis of Hobson's welfare economics can be derived simply from looking at what he took from his liberal and radical predecessors. But, as I have tried to show, Hobson thought it vital to add to that a Ruskinian dimension, a qualitative element, one that painted a picture of the good life for the community inspired by art and creativity rather than simply worried itself about how to increase incomes or to encourage equality of opportunity. In doing this, Hobson distanced himself very clearly from the emerging liberal orthodoxy discussed in other chapters of this book. It is arguable, however, that in doing so, he veered towards a view of ‘Society' as an organism which, partly under Ruskin's influence, took him from a truly liberal path (Allett 1990).